Perpetual Defense Thread (Defense & non-commercial Space Nerds ITT)

Well, then all you need it for is to maintain ability. Buying older planes should be fine. Tactics these days are dictated more by comm/data link/EW than by planes' kinematic performance. Go buy some F-15 SEs Razz

We ain't going to buy american.During your latest little beach party in Iraq we couldn't get any spare parts for our F-18s so it'll be a European plane. You know, just to make sure we can actually keep at least half our fleet in the air

Well, then all you need it for is to maintain ability. Buying older planes should be fine. Tactics these days are dictated more by comm/data link/EW than by planes' kinematic performance. Go buy some F-15 SEs Razz

We ain't going to buy american.During your latest little beach party in Iraq we couldn't get any spare parts for our F-18s so it'll be a European plane. You know, just to make sure we can actually keep at least half our fleet in the air

So instead of buying 50 Rafale, just buy 100 F-16s. Probably be a lot cheaper anyway.

Given the level of A2G abilities integrated in the Typhoon so far, I'd say it qualifies as a pure fighter by default.

Personal disclosure:I for one am rooting for the air force to regain their air to ground capability.Why you ask?Because as an artillerist I'd love to have that part of the Swiss combat doctrine that says that since the airforce can't hit anything on the ground, us artillerists have to go take our howitzers right at the front lines to perform "deep" strikes behind the enemy lines removed.Doing that in a howitzer that moves like a pregnant yak and is barely more armored than a medieval knight doesn't sound like a good career move.

Originally posted by PsionEdge:Perhaps NOAA should buy them directly instead of letting NASA do it and having NASA have to deal with all the politics with the competitors.

NASA and NOAA have a relatively long standing partnership regarding satellite operations. Basically, NOAA decides it wants a satellite with certain capabilities. It goes to NASA and says, here's some money, get us a satellite, and deliver it on-orbit. NASA then goes and gets a satellite manufacturer and instrument vendors to build it, and then they test the satellite, launch it, and deliver it to NOAA after the OV (on-orbit verification) period is over.

NOAA doesn't have the manpower to handle the prepwork of the pre-launch satellite testing and coordination. Especially given that they have operational support requirements for satellites already on-orbit.

As for GOES-R, the Boeing GOES-N constellation has it's own issues. As is par for the course, it was over budget (Boeing was hemorrhaging money at one point. They underbid a fixed price contract). However, given what I've seen in the industry, Boeing isn't alone in their woes. Northrup Grumman is mired in the NPOESS contract, Lockheed dropped a satellite, Raytheon is working on the VIIRS and is extremely overbudget and behind schedule. The list goes on and on.

As a point of disclosure, I have worked as a contractor for both NOAA and NASA in weather and environmental satellite operations. This post is not an official statement from either of those entities.

Unfortunately, it seems that this is the only way to win contracts. Even for cost-plus.

I feel like the government agencies for all acquisitions, be it space, planes, choppers, boats, parachutes, toilets, etc. need to write the RFPs and contracts in a way that underbidding to win will not be good for the contractor in the long run. I don't know if this means make everything FFP with astronomical penalties if the product isn't delivered or something else. If a company gets too far in the hole on an FFP contract the on reason they will still throw money after it is because they want to stay in that market. If they are willing to forgo that market for say 20 years they can drop it, turn over what work was done and say they are out. If you make penalties such that if they do so it will be extremely bad for the company you will get bids that build in margin and most likely closer to the original cost.

Not long ago I saw a study from the GAO that basically every current satellite program is over budget. GPS (as a whole) was the closest (though II-F was not doing well) followed by WGS as the least overrun (though I believe that's a pretty straightforward system, not secure-comm).

But even given the reasons for NOAA using NASA to buy it's satellites that doesn't explain or excuse what is my understanding of NASA's reworked Boeing's bid to their best estimate (which I accept makes sense, it is done with all bids) but then claims Boeing lost and cannot explain how they got there. It's mind-bottling!

Disclaimer: I work in the defense industry. But that's why I find things like this so ridiculous and frustrating. Canceling programs sucks a lot (like CSAR-X, new presidential helo, TSAT) but even worse is the fact that these government agencies can't seem to do a fair evaluation, at least on these high profile programs. So many protests have been upheld. I'd have no issues with protests being issued nearly all the time (though it's sad that's the case) but on these big contracts and having them be upheld means the government is seriously lacking in this crucial area of acquisition.

Do they have the shipbuilding capability to do that? Not too mention the funds (depending on the price of oil) ...

I don't think so. Black Sea Shipyard is in Ukraine, and I believe it's at least partially owned by the Ukrainian government. Of course they did say they'd start work by 2012 or 2013 so maybe the Russians know something the Ukrainians don't. Actually, they're also refurbishing a formerly canceled carrier for the Indian Navy, but that's been slow-going and fairly problematic.

It seems pretty ambitious given the terrible state of the Russian navy. They've only commissioned a few surface vessels since the cold war, and the Soviet ships have been difficult to keep operational.

Do they have the shipbuilding capability to do that? Not too mention the funds (depending on the price of oil) ...

I don't think so. Black Sea Shipyard is in Ukraine, and I believe it's at least partially owned by the Ukrainian government. Of course they did say they'd start work by 2012 or 2013 so maybe the Russians know something the Ukrainians don't. Actually, they're also refurbishing a formerly canceled carrier for the Indian Navy, but that's been slow-going and fairly problematic.

It seems pretty ambitious given the terrible state of the Russian navy. They've only commissioned a few surface vessels since the cold war, and the Soviet ships have been difficult to keep operational.

and lets not forget that even though they've had "aircraft carriers", the Soviet/Russian Navy really has no experience with them in the Western sense of the type. What does the Kuzentsov carry? a dozen SU33's? Before that the Kievs carried a few YAK-38's. As far as integrating carrier-based air power into their naval and general war-fighting doctrine, they've just never really had any experience.

IF they can get them built, and IF they prove to be semi-decent ships, and IF they can develop the doctrine and practices needed, and IF the rest of the fleet can be cobbled together to provide them with the equivalent of our CBG, then they might pose a threat.

edit: I don't recall where I read it, but doesn't Russia retain some kind of long-term (perpetual?) lease on a lot of the soviet-era naval facilities in the Black Sea? And by "lease" I mean "we're keeping this. fuck off."

edit: I don't recall where I read it, but doesn't Russia retain some kind of long-term (perpetual?) lease on a lot of the soviet-era naval facilities in the Black Sea? And by "lease" I mean "we're keeping this. fuck off."

That'd be Sebastopol.Russia has a similar deal to that place as the US has for Guantanamo.IIRC the deal's end is in a decade or so.Obviously Russia is very keen on keeping that port because it's their only port connected to the Mediterranean for the Med fleet.Sevastopol also has a big majority of people of Russian descent that are mostly pro-Russia.Ukraine has made noise of wanting that port back and expell the Russians and add to that Ukraine's wish to join NATO. So you can imagine how persuasive the Russians are willing to get.Basically this is a giant clusterfuck of a powder keg with a decade long fuse just waiting to go boom. Remember Georgia? Well Georgia is to stick and stones to what Sevastopol is to a nuke in this context.If I wanted to write a World War III book, this would be my starting point.

Originally posted by murph182:and lets not forget that even though they've had "aircraft carriers", the Soviet/Russian Navy really has no experience with them in the Western sense of the type. What does the Kuzentsov carry? a dozen SU33's? Before that the Kievs carried a few YAK-38's. As far as integrating carrier-based air power into their naval and general war-fighting doctrine, they've just never really had any experience.

Apparently the ship they're refitting for the Indians (Originally the Admiral Gorshkov soon to be INS Vikramaditya) is being worked on in Severodvinsk on the White Sea. I think that's the same shipyard where they've been struggling with their new boomer, the Borei class. On top of that, I don't think they've worked out all the problems on the new ballistic missile they intend to equip it with.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlip:Sevastopol also has a big majority of people of Russian descent that are mostly pro-Russia.Ukraine has made noise of wanting that port back and expell the Russians and add to that Ukraine's wish to join NATO. So you can imagine how persuasive the Russians are willing to get.Basically this is a giant clusterfuck of a powder keg with a decade long fuse just waiting to go boom. Remember Georgia? Well Georgia is to stick and stones to what Sevastopol is to a nuke in this context.If I wanted to write a World War III book, this would be my starting point.

They've also been handing out Russian passports there over the past few years, similar to what occurred in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia.

Unfortunately, it seems that this is the only way to win contracts. Even for cost-plus.

Very true. They significantly underbid that contract... or severely underestimated the costs of the modifications they needed to make (or some of both).

quote:

I feel like the government agencies for all acquisitions, be it space...

I whole-heartedly agree. I'm not sure what to about it though to solve the problems. Maybe a previous history with meeting goals (cost, schedule) and extra points. Though at times it seems like previous history does play a role in who gets a contract awarded.

However, part of the reason of over-budget/late projects is unclear and changing requirements. And major changes at that. And given what I've seen from some of the government acquisitions offices it's because they either ignore inputs from the people they're supposed to get input from, or they don't involve them at all.

quote:

Not long ago I saw a study from the GAO that basically every current satellite program is over budget. GPS (as a whole) was the closest (though II-F was not doing well) followed by WGS as the least overrun (though I believe that's a pretty straightforward system, not secure-comm).

Established programs with long runs seem to be the closet to on-budget. Generally because they're not "one-off" programs and they're at the closest thing to an assembly line that satellite building has to offer. Startup/design costs are the killer. But the Government no longer buys the long contracts any more. They try, and then because of cost, kill off some of the tail end satellites, reducing the number and then having to go through the design/new contract phase again. For instance, the POES/TIROS mission just launched their last satellite, NOAA-19. It was the 15th in the series of TIROS-N and Adv. TIROS-N spacecraft. Built by LMSSC and RCA since the mid-70's. Followon to that program is NPOESS... which is 100% overbudget (costs are at $11 Billion now I believe), and that's after cutting multiple satellites from the constellation and numerous instruments.

Though I'm not sure how the contract stuff is going on up at NASA about GOES-R. I can tell you that it's frustrating for everyone bidding on the damn thing, especially since staffing needs to start, milestones are soon, etc., and with the award being in limbo it screws everything up.

quote:

Canceling programs sucks a lot (like CSAR-X, new presidential helo, TSAT) but even worse is the fact that these government agencies can't seem to do a fair evaluation, at least on these high profile programs.

Canceling programs is almost a non-starter at times. Jumping back to NPOESS for a moment, (basic background for everyone: NPOESS is the next generation polar orbiting weather satellite run by NOAA partnering with DOD and NASA. Basically it was designed to integrate two previous constellations; POES(NOAA) and DMSP(Air Force); into one.) the schedule can't really account for the huge slip that would happen in the program was canceled. As the schedule goes, the first NPOESS satellite is scheduled to launch in 2014. The last POES bird just launched. Design life is 2 years, with extended operational life for another 5 (extended meaning most things work). That gives it very little overlap and assumes that it doesn't die on orbit (which does happen from time to time). Were NPOESS be canceled, it leaves the requirement for polar weather satellites unfulfilled, which would mean a new contract, and new design. Probably close to 12-13 year turnaround at a minimum. Start that now, means no new NOAA polar weather satellites until 2022. Given the economic and environmental impacts that would occur makes such a situation untenable. Which means throwing more money at the problem.

quote:

So many protests have been upheld. I'd have no issues with protests being issued nearly all the time (though it's sad that's the case) but on these big contracts and having them be upheld means the government is seriously lacking in this crucial area of acquisition.

At the same time, it seems like every big contract getting awarded has a protest on it now, and not all of them are being upheld. I think the entire system has issues and needs a lot of work.

France and Germany said Thursday that they were giving themselves another six months to decide whether to proceed with Airbus’s troubled A400M military transport plane, prolonging the agony — and the costs — for the European aircraft manufacturer, which is already grappling with the worst industry downturn in decades.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has formally ended Northrop Grumman Corp's (NOC.N) Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, once valued at $6.3 billion, despite the company's push to carry out what would have been a key test in September of the missile-defense technology.

I'm really curious bout how this might go. Canada has already spent money of the project (dev scam), and that would predispose us to the F-35 (I think it's a foregone conclusion), but DND has stated that there would be a competition for their next fighter.

CF has had twin-engine religion, despite (or because?) having CF-104 Starfighters - AKA "Lawn Darts" ** - in service for a very long time, so we'll see if that becomes a factor. Though if the USN gave up twin engines, I doubt that would be a big point of contention for us.

I believe that Eurofighter/Typhoon also has a small range advantage over the F-35 (and Super Hornet), plus it's faster than both, and a better air-to-air performer - though I have no idea how much capability as an interceptor that added stealthiness gives back to the F-35.

I suppose the primary duty would be shooing away Russian aircraft from the edges of our Artic airspace (a huge amount of space BTW), plus as a multirole aircraft in any foreign multi-national deployments (ie. in Afghanistan / Gulf-war I scenarios). Typhoon hasn't demonstrated much of a CAS capability as far as I've heard.

Actually, sounds like a Stealth Eagle would fit the bill rather nicely...

Is this A400M saga ever going to end? I don't feel like any country wants to pay for it. Especially when it can't carry a tank.

Tanks and AFVs must be so heavy to resist IEDs that tactical airlift cannot transport them, so why buy new tactical airlift? For countries acting as US mascots, contract airlift is an easy option and cheaper than owning systems you could barely afford. If the US can pay Russia to fly MRAPs to Iraq, there is no reason for others not to outsource.

The idea of making armored vehicles that fit tactical transports is mostly dead, but with the outbreak of global love after the Cold War ended we will never again need capability quickly fly armor to a fight. If we earnestly believe this we can forget about making it happen. What could be the downside of that?

Russians have been talking about building new carriers on and off, but it's just that - talk. If they want to build carriers, they have to build bases for them first, and right now they don't have any - Kuzya is based at a shipyard, which is the only facility they have that can handle it, and poorly at that. Their project 1143 cruisers spent their (short) lives at anchorages for the same reason - no ports. Also, they'd have to demonstrate capability by finishing the Gorshkov project, which thus far has shown plentiful delays, cost overruns, and little to no progress.

I don't feel like any country wants to pay for it. Especially when it can't carry a tank.

What's with this US obsession about carrying tanks by air? I know you can be proud of the C-17 & C-5 that can accomplish this feat but most armies on this planet simply don't care (and even the US sends its tanks by boat most of the time).

The A400M has never been designed to carry battle tanks, its target payload is ~30 tons which is enough for modern IFV and light artillery like CAESAR. The A400M is basically a modern C-130 with a larger payload & cross-section to carry the latest generation vehicules & helicopters that can't fit in a C-130.

Sure the C-17 carries even more payload byt it costs an arm and a leg both to buy and operate (while the A400M specifications require its lifecycle costs to be lower than the C-130 - we'll see how it goes once the extra devlopment costs are billed).

quote:

I believe that Eurofighter/Typhoon also has a small range advantage over the F-35

Nope, the F-35 has a much longer reach: F-35 on internal fuel goes almost as far as a Typhoon with external tanks.

I don't feel like any country wants to pay for it. Especially when it can't carry a tank.

What's with this US obsession about carrying tanks by air? I know you can be proud of the C-17 & C-5 that can accomplish this feat but most armies on this planet simply don't care (and even the US sends its tanks by boat most of the time).

Because having to send your super-advanced military by ship is emasculating. How can you have a badass military that robots cruising around in the sky, super-precise cruise missiles, and still have to send everything over the same way armies have been doing for the past 2,000 years. This is the home of the SR-71, the people who put a man on the moon and untold number of bizarre, far-out ideas from DARPA, and yet we still haven't come up with anything better than ferrying our people and equipment by boat. It's a difficult thing to accept.

It's also one of those things where, having gone a thousand years unchanged, you have to imagine that there *must* be a better way to do things, and we just haven't figured it out yet.

So you have Cold War, and post Cold War ideas like Boeing Pelican, the Walrus HULA, Ekranoplanes, and (one of my personal favorites) the Soviet amphibious assault submarine (Project 748).

(Edit)Just wanted to add a link to this paper from 1996 called Airlift 2025 (PDF) . As you might expect they cover a lot of these kinds of topics, though I was pretty surprised at how many crazy Cold-War-esque ideas it included.

Some of the highlights include delivering freight via ballistic missile, a variation of a previous one-man helicopter pack, and a weird hovercraft/jet.

The most interesting (and realistic) was a giant airship which, though half as fast as a C-5 Galaxy, can carry 6x as much cargo. The paper also brings up another point:

quote:

The development of stand-off delivery vehicles (UAVs) will also increase the airship’s survivability by allowing the airship to loiter well outside the battlespace threat area while the UAVs provide point of use delivery to forward deployed units.

Since the paper is about 13 years old, it's not too surprising that some of the technology mentioned has already materialized. One of the delivery methods suggested sounds similar to CQ-10 SnowGoose, only un-powered. Not only that, it takes things a step further:

quote:

Finally, personnel could be droppedin containers, reducing the parachute training required forindividuals and allowing more concentration of troops in aparticular area.

Here's an interesting piece that outlines some problems with the F-22 Raptor upgrade blocks.

quote:

Dave Majumdar's aerospace blog on examiner.com illuminates some stunning omissions in the US Air Force's upgrade plans for the Lockheed Martin F-22 fleet. My list of highlights from Dave's recent interview with the F-22 SPO:

1. The first 34 F-22s can not be upgraded with the Increment 3.1 air-to-ground and electronic attack and Increment 3.2 advanced air-to-air and networking upgrades. 2. The next batch of 63 F-22s will be upgraded to carry eight small diameter bombs, but they can only attack two targets at a time. These aircraft will never be able to fire high off bore sight missiles, which are swiftly becoming the standard for aerial combat. 3. The final batch of 91 aircraft are programmed to receive both the air-to-ground and advanced air-to-air hardware, but these do not include helmet-mounted cuing, also standard kit for latest-generation dogfighters.

It seems the Austrians have had poor experiences with the operating cost of their Typhoons, the article talks of a 360mill CHF overbudget cost.Obviously this has a chilling effect on the Swiss RFP, especially with the Frenchs complaining about similar problems with the Rafale.The Grippen gets bonus point for not having anyone complain about their operating costs lately

In the RFP it is specified the operating cost shouldn't be higher than our F18s.

Another important information is that it seems the Airforce has decided to standardize on one plane and not two as was the doctrine till now. This casts the competition in another light as futur evolution options become all the more important to be able to replace the F18s when they are outdated. The article says the Grippen might lose points over this.

What's with this US obsession about carrying tanks by air? I know you can be proud of the C-17 & C-5 that can accomplish this feat but most armies on this planet simply don't care (and even the US sends its tanks by boat most of the time).

Wheeled trucks (fancy or otherwise) have poor off-road performance and can carry much less armor than tracked vehicles. Most armies on this planet don't do power projection or need air assault capability. When you can get tanks to a fight you have powerful systems that can take some hits while offering plenty of killing power. When you go in "lightfighter style" you are closer to parity with the enemy.

Mogadishu is the classic example of what happens when you deploy junk light trucks, don't have airpower, and hordes of expendable enemy humans ruin your lightfighter day.

The US military has cliques that compete for resources. The folks who want airmobile armor continually lose to those who would rather go on foot and carry their stuff, and the armor proponents trend toward heavy systems that can take lots of hits but are difficult to transport.(You don't have to fight awkward actions you can never deploy to in the first place.)

Airmobile armor can carry lots of soldier gear, bring heavier weapons to the game, reduce fatigue by carrying troops, traverse terrain where wheels will get stuck, and even if it isn't invulnerable offer much more protection than nothing at all. Sheridans were successful in Panama, for example, but they were retired and their promised replacement was never fielded.

The last holdout for capability to bring armor to distant fights where it could not otherwise deploy is the Air Force, because it likes the utility of large transport aircraft. As wheeled trucks become too large for tactical airlift, they must go in aircraft designed to take tanks. Waiting for ships to deploy urgently needed MRAPs would cost lives, so they went by (often Russian contract Antonov) airlift. Now that the wheeled truck is popular for enforcing global love, countries who want to protect their troops have to get those trucks to the fight.

Another important information is that it seems the Air force has decided to standardize on one plane and not two as was the doctrine till now. This casts the competition in another light as future evolution options become all the more important to be able to replace the F18s when they are outdated. The article says the Grippen might lose points over this.

If that's what they want, go with the F16E model. I'm beginning to think the US needs to buy some for the so called "fighter gap" before the F-35 production goes into full swing.

Cheap, with most of the capabilities of the new aircraft. It's got AESA, IRST, ect. It all depends on what you want it to do.

Possibly, but will the F16 still be sold in 10-20 years when our F18s need to be replaced?

I suspect it will be in some form in 10 years but 20 is pushing it. EF2000 probably will be, maybe Rafale (I hope, I like that plane). The most likely to fit that criteria, is the F-35. It's been said they don't want though. The Gripen is nice, but I wonder abou longevity.

Mogadishu is the classic example of what happens when you deploy junk light trucks, don't have airpower, and hordes of expendable enemy humans ruin your lightfighter day.

Mogadishu is a good example of an operation where you don't need to airlift tanks (as you've got all the time to bring them by boat).

I'm not saying that tanks aren't needed, only that if you want to deploy a quick reaction force airlifting heavy (80t) armour is not a critical requirement*. There is a lot of new combat vehicules with say "medium" armor than can no longer fit in a C-130 but are designed to fit in the A400M.

*let's take this scenario: you are a medium-sized army with half a dozen C-17. You need to deplay a QRC as soon as possible. As a commander, would you rather have some 6 odd tanks within 24 hours or 20 fighting verhicules?

Of course if you're the USA you can send a whole brigade with your dozens of C-17/C-5 but no one else can afford to.

quote:

Cheap, with most of the capabilities of the new aircraft. It's got AESA, IRST, ect.

With a little bit of luck the SwAF could negotiate a common version with the rumored Rafale UAE deal (where the UAE is making a laundry list of every possible feature that can be integrated - AESA radar with SAR mode, more powerful engines, HMS, MTOW increase, conformal tanks...).

Northrop Grumman's model shop built a full-size replica of Horton 229, and then tested it to see just how stealthy it would have been going up against Britain's radar at the time. The also covered a bit of the Horton 18, the larger 6-engine intercontinental bomber they were working on. Worth a watch.